The appellant appealed convictions for impaired operation and operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level over 80 mg.
The central issue at trial was the identity of the driver involved in a motor vehicle collision.
During the trial, before hearing closing submissions, the trial judge stated that the defence witness was lying and that the accused was guilty.
The appeal court held that expressing fixed conclusions about credibility and guilt before hearing counsel's closing arguments constituted an error of law and deprived the appellant of the right to be fully heard.
A new trial was ordered before a different judge.
